Since the 1990s, security and development concerns were often raised in tandem and policy makers and scholars saw the discourse of security and development as interlinked in various ways. A conceptual shift in the early part of the 1990s in how theories of security and development were formulated facilitated as well as accompanied the convergence of their discourses. A key moment in this conceptual shift was the formulation of human development and human security. Since then, the development-security nexus trend has been a source of influence for the design of international development and security policies.
This chapter identifies the evolving debates on the concepts of development and security to understand how the nexus between the two emerged and became entrenched. It is divided into two main sections focusing respectively on human development and human security. The analysis of human development is preceded by an overview of theories and ideas of development2 because the elaboration of this concept in the 1990s is part of the theorising efforts since the birth of development studies in 1950s that saw a proliferation of interpretations about ends and means of achieving development. However, before investigating in the chapter the evolving significance of development, it is important to point out here that from the outset of the discipline in the 1950s a common denominator of its diverse theories is that development issues have been regarded not only as domestic issues but also as international ones (O’Brien &Williams 2007). In the 1950s development was primarily regarded as a domestic concern that anti-colonial movements and postcolonial states used as a mantra for claiming independence, for instance by the Non-Aligned Movement and the outcome of the 1955 Bandung conference (European Navigator 2004). During the years this concern acquired also an international character and shaped economic and political relations among states. The context of development was no longer simply “the study of policy choice in poor countries” (Krieckhaus 2006:165), but it became “a method of change that has been introduced in the former colonies to pull up standards of living of their people” (Dasgupta 1985: 10). Therefore, development had a national and international sphere, and the theorising efforts for instance of Dependency and World System theories included the analysis of the linkages between these two dimensions.
2 Throughout the chapter I will maintain the difference between the spirit, the concept, and theories of
development. By the spirit of development I mean the optimistic attitude, the feeling that inspired the development decades. The concept of development is the abstract or generic idea of development used to formulate theories which have been set out to explain a particular situation. The theory is “a logically interconnected set of propositions about [the] empirical phenomena [of development]” (Harvey et al 2002:136).
The internationalisation of development and the emergence of post-colonial states constituted a new terrain not only for development theories but for the discipline of IR in general. Despite the emphasis that the discipline put on relations, it was recognised by Non-mainstream theories of IR in the late 1980s and 1990, many of them adopting a Post-Positivist approach, that the discipline failed to adequately elaborate on past encounters between Western and non-Western people, thus ignoring their major influence on the creation of states and their international relations (Krishna in Jones et al 2006:89; see also Anand 2007; Barker et al 1994; Darby et al 1997; Escobar 1995; Rist 1997). Furthermore, the analysis of the regimes of representation such as the Third World, the South or the Global South with their underlying imperial encounters and security considerations, created an opportunity of sharing a common ground of research for the disciplines of development, international relations and security studies (Doty 1996; Grant 1995; Krause et al 1997; Thomas 1987; Thomas & Wilkin 1999, 2004).
Whether development is regarded as a shared concern among disciplines or as an expanded concept which has entered other disciplines’ remit, elucidating the past theoretical reading of this concept is however inadequate for understanding the contemporary significance of the concept and practice of development. This inadequacy is because the current trend that highlights the interrelation between development and security has made the analysis of the development (and security) problematiques more complex. This is why to understand the wider questions raised in the thesis, it is necessary to outline the theoretical developments in the development and security domains. Thus I introduce the analysis of the concept of human development by an overview of “the chaotic history of development theory” (Trainer 1989:177) and this is followed by an analysis of security theories.
According to the literature on human development, this concept had two main implications: it highlighted the limitation of an economic approach to development centred on market led economic growth (Suhrke 1999); and it enlarged the fulcrum of development by affirming that people are the subjects and objectives of development, but without rejecting economic growth as a development tool (Sen 1999). Human development entailed a ‘zooming out’, in the sense of moving beyond the narrow economic focus, of the development process by putting at the centre of this enlarged development context the human being. I argue that human development with its concerns about people’s choices and capabilities (Sen 1985, 1999) was a development statement, rather than a development strategy, despite being the basis for the formulation of the Human Development Index (Sagar &Najam 1998; UNDP 1990). Its questioning of the ‘development question’ was not so radical in the sense that it did not provide operational guidelines for an alternative to market
economic growth models. I contend that one attempt to overcome this weak policy strategy and to operationalise the concept of human development was the merge of development and security concerns in the 1990s. Their nexus emerged to rectify the weakness of human development as a development strategy but it also brought back the development discourse to talk about means and not only ends: security came to be regarded as a mean to development, as we will see with one set of development-security nexus policies called Security Sector Reform.
The relevance for investigating the significance of human development is not because it is another addition to the development series which attempted to address issues linked to widespread world poverty, deprivation and unequal access to resources. If this was the case, human development should be considered as only the product of its time, and it would have been by now superseded by other development trends more attuned with contemporary problems of international economic exclusion (Enloe 1989; Escobar 1995; Rahnema & Bawtree 1997; Saunders et al 2002). Human development facilitated the orientation of the discipline towards an integrative approach with other disciplines because of the need to frame a comprehensive conceptual picture of the human being, and to formulate a consequent policy response. This inclusive approach of development was also facilitated in the 1990s by the convergence of other discourses such as human rights, security, environment, democracy, debt relief as priorities on the agenda of policy makers. In particular, the international political climate of the 1990s decade increased the demand for concerted approaches when dealing with such issues as well as providing responses to the fading of the Cold-War apparatus which shook the fabric of Easters European and authoritarian states. Considering that the focus of this thesis is on one of these products, the development-security nexus, the second section of this chapter focuses on the emergence in the 1990s of a trend in the realm of security studies which shared with the human development approach the human being as the referent object of analysis: human security.
Human security provided with a new reading of security issues. It was promoted by the UNDP through the publication in 1994 of its report titled New Dimensions of Human Security (UNDP 1994), but also by the Commission on Human Security (CHS 2003), the UN Secretary General (United Nations High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change 2004) and the Human Security Centre (Human Security Centre 2005). The concept of human security has benefited from many definitions which have enlarged its spectrum of applicability by expanding its realm of interests beyond state military means (Chen et al 2003; Hampson et al 2002; Paris 2001; Thomas 2000). Among those definitions, the one provided by the UNDP is significant in the sense that it allows the analysis of how human security has embedded within its meaning the notion of human
development, paving the way for the investigation of the formulation of the development-security nexus. The relation between human security and development will be analysed in chapter III, and in particular why the fulfilment of security policies started to be regarded as dependent on development related policies and outcomes. In this chapter I analyse the manufacturing of a perception of danger and security centred on the human being and how this relates to the role of the state. I do this by addressing the question of ‘security for whom’ which will reveal that human security is not de-linked from state security. The analysis of the reading of the role of the state by human security is relevant because I contend that the state is still part of the human security analysis; and it still maintains its primacy in the implementation of security policies even when they are formulated in a holistic manner following a human security approach.
The human security perspective offers a vision of security which focused more on security relations within the state rather than between states. As we will see, this concept puts the emphasis on the need to investigate the security relation between the state and its citizens by ‘zooming in’, in the sense of focusing on people, the notion of state security and pushing for an analysis of state security governance capabilities.
However, in the 1990s, despite the launching of initiatives such as the ban of land-mines (International Campaign to Ban Landmines 1997) which drew attention to the humanitarian consequences of conflicts, overall, human security was not translated into clear security strategies. Apart from an opening up of the discipline of security towards other disciplines, the Critical Security Studies for instance (Krause et al 1997; Lipschutz et al 1995) argue that it is also a matter of questioning ‘the security question’ and the security subject(s). Suffice to say here that the ‘zoom in’ of the security discourse towards the analysis of the management of state security and its consequences on people, and the ‘zoom out’ of the development discourse towards an investigation of the impact that the economic management of the state has on people - thus sharing the human being as the same referent of analysis - brought to the search for a common strategy that was sought to be provided by the development-security nexus policies, analysed in chapter III.
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT The Theories of Development
After half a century of theorising efforts, development is still seen as “a slippery concept” (Edelman & Haugerud in Nugent & Vincent 2004:86), as a plastic word which has lost its specialised meaning (Poerksen in Rist 1997; Sachs 1999), and for which there is still no consensus as to what it means or requires (Gertzel in O’Brien & Williams 2007). From its etymology (des-
“undo” and -veloper “wrap up”) it implies to untie, to liberate something. However, what etymology allows development to do in principle, depends more on other variables than on its semantic capacities. The initial idea of development in the 1950s was included within the idea of progress, as stated by Post-Development theorists, that was labeled by a succession of different wording such as progress, modernisation, development, growth (Shanin in Rahnema et al 1997). Since then, the context and its reading, its subjects and objectives, its policy responses and outcomes have all undergone changes (for a history of the evolution of development as a concept see Chari & Corbridge 2008; Jameson et al 1996; Rist 1997; Todaro & Smith 2009). Development became a discourse, a language “but also what is represented through language” (Grillo et al 1997:12), and embedded a framework (Makki 2004) that evolved during the years leading development theorists to talk about “The making and unmaking of the third world through development” (Escobar in Rahnema et al 1997).
The beginning of the discipline of development studies is traced back to the middle of the past century, and it became more and more institutionalised as politicians and theorists disseminated theories on how some areas of the world could change in order to enhance the living conditions of those people residing there (for the origin of development studies see Chari & Corbridge 2008; Corbridge et al 1995; Escobar 1995; Jameson et al 1996; Kingsbury et al 2008; Leys 1996; Rist 1997; Sachs 1996; Tornquist 1999; Toye 1993). Since the birth of development studies in the 1950s, development theories privileged the economic vision of development probably influenced by the need to “embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas” as USA President Truman declared in 1949 (Truman quoted in Rist 1997:71).
The mapping of the world exercise done in the name of development was very much influenced by the previous scramble for Africa and the other continents during the nineteenth century under the banner of colonialism (Escobar 1995). With a clear geography of intervention in mind policy makers used the discipline of economics to delivery the promises of development and in particular Modernisation theories headed by W.W. Rostow. His book The Stages of Economic Growth (Rostow 1960) mapped out the future of those countries identified as in need of development; what they had to do was to follow the instructions, step by step. Modernisation theories magnified the progressive nature of the idea of development. They stated that this progress belonged to the Western world and validated its economic system because it was deemed capable to deliver a desirable standard of living. Western countries had to guide poor countries along this path and economic growth was regarded as the engine for allowing the economic “take-off” of poor
countries. Modernisation theories managed to secure the necessity of the idea of development while at the same time fossilising its image as a positive substratum for economic policies. Briefly, they sanctified both the idea of development and economic growth. All in all, economic growth policies were dominant during the 1950s and 1960s (World Bank 1990), and even during the following decades, economic growth concerns were always included in economic policies, even if only as the alter ego of development (Burki et al 1997; UNDP 1990; World Bank 1989a). However, by blindly siding with economic growth without keeping a safe critical distance from it, the idea of development occupied a fragile position. A criticism of economic growth implied an automatic questioning of development as an idea and as a theory. By putting the idea of development into mainstream economics, Modernisation theories sanctified a framework of subordinate relations between Western states and those aspiring to development, opening up the possibility of a future transformation of these international relations only when the latter would mirror the success of the former.
The first critique of Modernisation theories was put forward in the 1960s by Dependency theories which slashed the belief in the idea of development as a linear progress induced by Western economies (for a summary of these theories see Amin 1974; Amin et al 1982; Blomstrom & Hettne 1984; Cardoso 1972; Frank 1966, 1977; Lall 1975; Love 1980). They claimed that the future of poor countries was hindered by the same economic mechanism which enriched some rich countries of the world. One term that was born and bred out of Dependency theories was underdevelopment, and they used it to explain the multifaceted concept of development. Their theorists contributed with a new insight on the relations between the core and the periphery of the world, which represented the rich and poor countries respectively. Another dichotomy used was also the one of metropolitan and satellite countries. This geographical and conceptual division gave Dependency theories the context and tools to analyse relations within countries. They stated that there was an unequal relation linking the core and periphery which was responsible for the simultaneous production of wealth in the former and poverty in the latter, or rather for the production of development in the core and underdevelopment in the periphery. Underdevelopment was then considered as a result of the economic relations with the core countries and as a condition affecting those satellite countries which were at the receiving ends of this economic mechanism. This term is distinguished from the term undeveloped which Dependencies theories applied only to a pre- capitalist Europe. The term undeveloped simply implied that those countries at that time lacked development, and not that their condition was the result of their relations with rich countries (Frank 1966). Therefore, Dependency theorists identified only one economic engine producing
simultaneous wealth and poverty but in two separate geographical zones. The condition of underdevelopment was portrayed as a mixture of poverty and more generally as the absence of the benefits enjoyed by the people in rich countries. However, it was not simply development on reverse; it meant that there was an economic mechanism producing poverty, rather than an embryonic economic mechanism that will produce wealth in the future. However, shortly this term would be de-linked from the meaning received by Dependency theories and used throughout the development age for describing countries that did not present the same economic patterns and achievements of Western countries. As we will see, in the 2000s it will also acquire a new fame.
The idea of development portrayed by Dependency theories was quite different from the one of Modernisation theories. It had lost its positive mystical allure and it became a more material one, a desirable fruit that everybody wanted but that only few could taste. Development was no longer a sentiment which inspired the action of goodwill politicians; it was a condition of living, a status that people in some rich countries enjoyed. The age of high mass consumption described by Rostow could not simply be achieved with the support of the idea of development. The idea itself was transformed into something negative. In fact, it was trapped in the same mechanism that produced simultaneous development in rich countries and underdevelopment in poor countries. Dependency theories constituted the first voice coming from the South which questioned the idea of development, and the first to point out that the transformation of rich countries had to be included within the one of poor countries in order to change the framework of international relations.
This inclusive approach of development continued with the World System theories (see Amin 1985; Amin et al 1982; Wallerstein 1974). From the negative dependency expressed by Frank (Frank 1977), these theories proposed an interdependent world, in which states were units relating to each other through capitalistic relations. These theories included the concept of semi-periphery within the Dependency theories discourse of core and periphery. Furthermore, they made these three structural zones mobile: core, periphery and semi-periphery could mutate their positions in the world economic hierarchy, and this was seen as ‘development’ or ‘regression’ (Wallerstein 1974). The idea of development portrayed by the World System theories is no longer fossilised in an economic system with a dual productive capacity, because the existence of the semi-periphery and world interdependence meant that the idea of development could still be used to unify the world under its banner.
This development effort was also marked by a succession of United Nations Development